Group items tagged

"Speaking about Britain's Got Talent singer Susan Boyle in October, he said :"She would not be where she is today if it wasn't for the fact that she looked like such a ******* mong." Mong is a slang term used to refer to people with Down's Syndrome. It is derived from the word "mongrel." He went on: "When she first came on the telly, I went: 'Is that a mong?' "I don't mean she has Down's Syndrome, by the way. No, no! That would be offensive. That word doesn't mean that any more." Channel 4 claimed that using the word was justified in the context of late-night humour. It said the comment was not "directed at Susan Boyle as having a disability but at those who refuse to acknowledge that meanings of words can adapt over time". The company said it needed to experiment and defended the entertainer's right to freedom of expression. Ofcom said in its ruling that Gervais was exploring the interpretations and meanings of certain provocative words. He was examining the changes in their associations over time, with a focus on his assertion that the word "mong" had lost its derogatory association with Down's Syndrome. The regulator said: "This involved Ricky Gervais evoking the word's offensiveness to some extent, and challenging the relationship between the offence and the word itself. "We considered, therefore, that the nature and focus of the routine provided a clear editorial context for his use of the term." "

"Incensed by what it sees as a virtual pandemic of verbal vulgarity issuing from the diverse likes of Howard Stern, Bono of U2 and Robert Novak, the United States Senate is poised to consider a bill that would sharply increase the penalty for obscenity on the air. By raising the fines that would be levied against offending broadcasters some fifteenfold, to a fee of about $500,000 per crudity broadcast, and by threatening to revoke the licenses of repeat polluters, the Senate seeks to return to the public square the gentler tenor of yesteryear, when seldom were heard any scurrilous words, and famous guys were not foul mouthed all day. Yet researchers who study the evolution of language and the psychology of swearing say that they have no idea what mystic model of linguistic gentility the critics might have in mind. Cursing, they say, is a human universal. Every language, dialect or patois ever studied, living or dead, spoken by millions or by a small tribe, turns out to have its share of forbidden speech, some variant on comedian George Carlin's famous list of the seven dirty words that are not supposed to be uttered on radio or television. "

"But why are slurs so offensive? And why are some more offensive than others? Even different slurs for the same group vary in intensity of contempt. How can words fluctuate both in their status as slurs and in their power to offend? Members of targeted groups themselves are not always offended by slurs ─ consider the uses of appropriated or reclaimed slurs among African-Americans and gay people. The consensus answer among philosophers to the first question is that slurs, as a matter of convention, signal negative attitudes towards targeted groups. Those who pursue this answer are committed to the view that slurs carry offensive content or meaning; they disagree only over the mechanisms of implementation. An alternative proposal is that slurs are prohibited words not on account of any particular content they get across, but rather because of relevant edicts surrounding their prohibition. This latter proposal itself raises a few pertinent questions: How do words become prohibited? What's the relationship between prohibition and a word's power to offend? And why is it sometimes appropriate to flout such prohibitions? "